7. Gonzales vs. Narvasa G.R. No.

140835, August 14, 2000

Facts: Petitioner Ramon Gonzales, in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, assails
the constitutionality of the creation of the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional
Reform (PCCR) and of the positions of presidential consultants, advisers
and assistants.

The PCCR was created by Pres. Estrada by virtue of EO 43 in order to study and
recommend proposed amendments and/or revisions to the Constitution, and the
manner of implementing them.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing to file the case

Held: In assailing the constitutionality of EO 43, petitioner asserts his interest as a

citizen and taxpayer.

A citizen acquires standing only if he can establish that he has suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; the
injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and the injury is likely to be
addressed by a favorable action. Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained or in
danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the PCCR and
of the positions of presidential consultants, advisers and assistants. Neither does
he claim that his rights or privileges have been or are in danger of being violated, nor
that he shall be subjected to any penalties or burdens as a result of the issues raised.

In his capacity as a taxpayer, a taxpayer is deemed to have the standing to raise a

constitutional issue when it is established that public funds have disbursed in
alleged contravention of the law or the Constitution. Thus, payer’s action is properly
brought only when there is an exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. In
the creation of PCCR, it is apparent that there is no exercise by Congress of its taxing
or spending power. The PCCR was created by the President by virtue of EO 43
asamended by EO 70. The appropriations for the PCCR were authorized by the
President, not by Congress. The funds used for the PCCR were taken from
funds intended for the Office of the President, in the exercise of the Chief Executive’s
power to transfer funds pursuant to Sec. 25(5) of Art. VI of the Constitution. As to the
creation of the positions of presidentialconsultants, advisers and assistants, the
petitioner has not alleged the necessary facts so as to enable the Court to determine if
he possesses a taxpayer’s interest in this particular issue.